|
southern MN | Folks legally owning guns and ammo are all around. Sometimes a person goes outside of stable or legal and starts shooting things up outside of legal.
In those cases most certainly guns and ammo are confiscated, people are locked up.
The question in your analogy is, is the gal on the bicycle acting responsibly or not?
We don't really know.
And that scares people.
So far the govt has failed to present a plan that answers the questions, provides a safe path that is clear to see and follow. So any sort of speech or oh the risk is very low does not appease people's concerns.
The odds of her having the disease is really low, but we don't know. She doesn't know. She is playing a game of lotto, and the odds are very heavily in her favor. But a whole lot of people lose if her number comes up.
All the people on that street have rights, not just her.
We need to blend those rights together to allow everyone as many rights as possible without harming others rights.
I don't think it is right to throw her in a tent for 3 weeks without much of any explanation.
I don't think it is right for her to ride a bike around town at a time when there is so much fear and so little understanding of how this disease works.
There is some middle ground out there, if we would work towards it. And rapidly.
Grandstanding about rights and lawsuits makes me distrust her very much.
None the less she does have some rights, and we need to get - rapidly - to a place where her rights and the rights of others on that same street are all protected and co exist.
We play the odds game - likely nothing will happen as likely she is not infected.
Nor will be the next 100 Ebola workers.
Or 1000?
But some day, one will be infected, and then we start another round of expensive cleanup, expensive monitoring, a lot of people living in stress for 3 weeks - their rights deeply affected.
Your question really is, is the gal on the bicycle waving around an empty gun in public, or waving around a loaded gun?
If she were waving a real gun, no one would ask questions, they would get rid of the perceived danger. The rights of the other people on the street would take precedence.
So then it comes down to the degree of risk, vs the rights of he individual presenting the risk.
A person waving a gun around can only hurt a few dozen people around on the street. The odds are kinda high that person has some issues going on.
The gal riding the bike has a low odds of causing problems, but if her gun gos off, it could be a snowball affect on many thousands of people and businesses for many years.
She is far less risk, but far more widespread devastation.
So, who has the rights?
Who has responsibilities? Does she have zero responsibilities along with full and complete rights to do anything she wants?
We need a better, understandable, enforceable plan to make people feel safe. No, not deport her, not lock her in a tent in darkness for 3 weeks. But a better plan than what we have, a better plan than riding around on a bike with a 10,000 chamber nuclear gun. With one bullet in it.....
The odds are real small hers goes off, but the results would be very, very bad.
We all have rights, not just her.
Paul | |
|
here are a few facts.
